Well, then you have folks like me who may get sufficient benefit out of 10-12 visits to the lounge to justify the card today and who will drop it if the cost increase significantly. If there are enough like me, there won't be enough of you to support the cost of the lounge network.

If the effective cost of a lounge visit exceeds the cost of a decent meal and drink at the airport, why bother with a lounge. Especially if I can expense some of those meals anyway.

You are correct in that there arent enough or theyre too small.

Mexico City, for example, has 3 Amex lounges, along with like 50 other lounges for different airlines (and competitors - Mastercard has a lounge there, as do 2 or 3 banks). In MEX, the Amex lounges are open to Gold members, which is fine, because there are so many backup options

The Delta lounge was recently renovated, that's why it's so good.

It was more then just a remodel.....the whole vibe was different including the lounge staff.

Centurion Card #1, about 6-7 visits per year.
Centurion Card #2 (SO), maybe 1-2 times per year (2016, was 1 visit)

because the skyclub by A1 is (relatively) brand new?

I would guess that the average was closer to once a year or less. There are a great many people that don't travel often, don't live or travel to a city with a lounge, or if they do travel a lot, already belong to their hub airline's club.

According to the internet, there are about 1.3 million platinum and centurion card members.

Lounge visitor numbers are harder to find, but I saw a mention of United Clubs at O'Hare (of which there are 4) getting about 1.7 million visitors per year. This means 425,000 visits per lounge. Centurion lounges are likely more crowded than United Clubs, so let's say 600,000 visits per year. Multiply that by 6.5 lounges (I'm counting the SEA studio as half) and that gives 3.9 million visitors per year, or about 3 per cardholder.

Of course, many of the visitors are guests, and there are some who visit very frequently, so the median number of visits per cardholder per year is somewhat less than that. I think your estimate of 1 per year or less is about right, based on this very rough math.

You noticed that too? Funny how that works!

People that travel solo think the problem is guests. People that travel only occasionally but with a large family think the problem is that some other people visit too often. People that use a lounge only before a flight think the problem is people that also use it upon arrival. People that use it only prior to original departure and not during long connections think the problem is that people stay too long in the lounge. Centurion cardholders think the problem is that Platinums get in for free. Each group has a plan to reduce lounge crowding, which miraculously affects only the way other cardholders use the lounge. And, each group seems to think that their particular group is the one that's most profitable to Amex, so obviously they should be catered to at the expense of the others. And, some portion of each group have an attitude that they will "punish" Amex by cancelling all their cards if there are any changes that affect them.

Yeah, so we are all a bit selfish and don't want our benefits restricted. This is Flyertalk, nothing new here. I believe Amex has or could have the data to make a rational decision. It may impact me. My Plat card relationship with Amex is purely business. I don't need the card to impress people. So if the value is no longer there for me, it will get canceled. If they don't do anything, I may decided that the value isn't there anymore, too. It's not punishment, it is a business decision. I have other cards to remain a "member".

I agree. Centurion could be unlimited or maybe up to 5 guests. Platinum could be one guest.

That's an interesting idea, but I think it's flawed. What you said last is certainly true: if the limit is set high enough, then nobody could claim that the card was still not a good deal based on the value received. The flaw comes into the notion that setting an annual limit to person-entries per card would affect lounge crowding. While there are undoubtedly some outliers (such as someone that travels once a week round-trip on the same route on business with two colleagues, and uses the lounge at originating, connecting, and arriving airports), I would guess that the number of person-entries by such people is small, even cumulatively, as compared to the total number of visits. While it might be satisfying to some others know that you're limiting such people, I'm not so sure that it would materially affect crowding. That is, unless you set the limit low enough that it would affect a much larger percentage of cardholders.

It all depends on the actual usage patterns overall. Amex has the detailed data down to the last entry on this, compared to us that can only guess.

Oh, but they will. Look at all the people complaining about data caps, even if the cap is 20x their actual usage. People don't like to be limited.


I agree. I would also point out that crowding is very time-dependent. It's only during peak periods that tables are not available. Placing sweeping limits like those proposed in this thread may generate more complaints than they resolve.

Yes, but they don't have data on how cardholders will respond to any changes. They know to what extent crowding will be alleviated if they limit guest entries to X per year, but what they don't know is how many people will not renew the card in response to this. Given that many people signed up for a signup bonus and they are giving out $200 retention credits, I'm guessing the renewal rate is not that great anyway, so they may want to tread carefully.

A Message to AMEX: Don't tread on me :)

I don't disagree and you may very well be correct and that is why this is a very difficult, lose/lose proposition for Amex. People in this forum may not agree on all accounts with Amex decisions/policies, but Amex are not idiots. They are aware of the problem and if there was solution that was as simply as all the arm chair quarterbacks in this forum believe, they would have already implemented it.

I think people here believe (rather simplistically, IMHO) that whichever of the two approaches most discussed here (limit guests or limit visits) one is the obvious "winner by a landslide" in terms of least detrimental business impact to Amex. If that was the case, I suspect they would have already executed that path. My guess is that clearly the impact of those two choices, is not, in fact quite so clear/obvious as people here believe.

Regards